Re: No longer can enter groups in 0.82 and 0.83 ... ???

[Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>]

Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com> writes:

> I just got the same problem with pgnus-0.83 (please read what I have
> quoted below).  Also note that I always get the "no unread articles"
> message in each group I try to enter, irrespective of how many unread
> articles there really are.
> 
> Everything has worke fine for me up to and including pgnus-0.81, but
> this started happening in pgnus-0.82 and, as I have noted, is
> continuing in pgnus-0.83
> 
> Any ideas what could be causing this?

Well, I figured out a workaround to the problem I'm describing, but I
have a feeling that this is not the ultimate solution:

I noticed that in version 0.81, the `gnus-summary-expunge-below'
variable was not marked as `global' in gnus-sum.el, but in versions
0.82 and 0.83, it is marked as `global'.  This seems to be causing the
problem I'm seeing.

I have `gnus-use-scoring' set to `t' in my `.gnus.el' file, and I
specify `all.SCORE' for my score file.  However, that score file
doesn't exist (and hasn't for eons).  For some reason, this causes
everything to be scored to some number below 1 (probably 0).

In versions 0.82 and 0.83, the `gnus-summary-expunge-below' variable
gets set to 1 when I'm in summary mode.  In version 0.81, it gets set
to `nil'.  This variable interacts with the scoring that I described
in the previous paragraph to cause all my articles to look like they
have been read.

So, I have come up with three possible workarounds for this, all of
which are probably not the "real" solution:

(1)  Put this line into my gnus summary mode hook:

       `(setq gnus-summary-expunge-below nil)'

(2)  Create an `all.SCORE' file that scores every article in all groups
     to 1 or above.

(3)  Turn off `gnus-use-scoring'

I don't really like number (3) because I do use scoring for a subset
of the groups I read.  I don't like (2) because then I'm needlessly
scoring everything just to compensate for this behavior.  I don't like
(1) because I think that I'm just covering up the real problem.

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz@asfast.com